Refute Marx? You're silly. ;)

@Crazy Karl did not find a way to do it better then religion and infact no nation on this planet has followed Karl's ideas. Communism (I am a Communist in its true definition not this bullshit one America came up with) is in effect community looking out for each other, Russia, China, Cuba, all those bullshit countries labeled Communist were infact Dictatorships so lets get our terminology straight. It's just like the world Liberal, by definition if you're an American citizen and believe in the American ideology you're a Liberal just deal with it. The founders of this nation were Liberal and set down their Liberal principals in this Liberal nation but apparently Liberal is a bad thing now. Anyways back on point the media is fucking with your minds and you let them do it. You cant prove either way what really started the war all you have is speculations on the matter.

@Everyone get your god damn terminology straight before you walk in here with your Americanized ideas.

@Iceray, in fairness to Cuba's version of Communism, they have the best health care system in latin america, they are as you stated a dictatorship, and i have a problem with the fact that they imprison people for political reasons (which i would consider an abuse of power) That's not to say i don't also think the US trade embargo has hurt their economic development and possibly their political development aswell.

You can infact have a Communist Dictatorship, or a Capitalist Dictatorship, as Capitalist/Communist is merely a way of organising an economy, whereas political power can be run as a dictatorship in one of many forms, a one or two party system, parlimentrary democracy, whatever. Whether they choose to run a Capitalist/Communist economy is largely unrelated.

@Iceray: you said "@Orathaic I disagree with [religion] being a more recent invention. Caste system is a great example..."

A caste system does not require a religion. Just as marxism was insipred by contemporary atheist writers, it is possilbe to imagine a religion which dictates a purely communal/communist economy (and, say, a ban on charging interest for lending money as christianity once did) that system would be capable of all the same destruction which the Communist party of Russia did without nay reference to God.

Arguably any system of ideas/strategies* could be framed as a religion or as a purely atheistic ideology - thus any social grouping could, by the way you are arguing, potentially be called a religion. You would then be arguing that humans by their very nature are religious. That humans by their very nature come up with religious ideas - it is like you're arguing against religion by accepting it is fundamental to human nature.

I would argue that humans are capable of 'evil' as, defined by our morale values, for other reasons, and that religion does not hold the monopoly on violence or war. I would probabaly concede that religion can be used as a means of control - controlling thoughts and behaviour - and that this in and of itself is firstly not unique to religion, and secondly can be a net benifit to society. (though with our current level of communication technology it is possible that individuals thinking from themselves - unlimited by religion or any other controls over what they think about - could produce more benifit to society, just as a free market allows innovation wihout the direction/control of government...)

*Strategies - being ways of acting, economic, social, morale, whatever... but overall any successful society usually uses some sort of strategy to prevent, say, theft which would harm society as a whole while benifitting the individual thief. Religion may be a used in many places to encourage enforcement of such strategies...

@ Ice

So you're saying that some people got together and took Marx's orginal message and used it to do some pretty terrible things? That sounds familiar. Using your own logic, you should shun communism under the same grounds that you shun religion. As far as body count goes communism has been at far more deadly in the past century than religion. The same defense that you're using I'm sure would sound pretty hollow in the opposition words "those aren't real Christians, because real Christians believe this like me"

I agree with Ice. Although people find solice in religion, there is also the "Do as I say or you will be in hell for eternity." Communism never had that. I remember the guy on CNN saying "If it wasn't for my love of Jesus, I would shoot my neighbour." What happens if he becomes a Muslim or an Atheist...a dead neighbour?

That guy on CNN was obviously a jerk.
Muslims believe in Jesus, and the teachings of the prophet Mohamed, (the final Prophet from God as far as they are concerned) That doesn't mean the kill their neighbours.

Atheists are able to make choices based on their morales with needing to resort to superstitions about the afterlife and/or whether jesus loves them enough.

Lastly, you are correct, Communism never had the threat of eternal torment. Communist Russia merely had the threat of labour camps in Siberia, which was a very real threat.

Perhaps not the idea of Hell, but there was certainly the threat of punishment while living in a totalitarian state. Ice said it himslef nobody has been able to get Communism right. The communist states that we tend point to are some of the most egregious violators of human rights. I was merely pointing out that attempting to distance "true communism" from these governments is analogous to trying to distance "true Christianity" from the Cursades. Simply put some people are opportunistic and will use any idea present to thier own advantage. That does nothing to devalue the ideas themselves, it only proves that people have a tendency to be opportunists.

In answer to the CNN quote, what difference is there between that guy and an atheist who'd shoot his neighbor if he weren't afraid of the penalty under the law?

Any normal atheist wouldn't shoot his neighbor for the Hell of it. Atheists tend to use common sense. Killing someone usually unites other people against you (family of the murdered) so it is in your best interest as an atheist to avoid this repurcussion unless it's necessary (self-defense, possibly revenge depending on the degree). With some CLEAR LOGICAL THINKING morality is unnecessary, and I prefer to have no one else judge my "soul" or the very essence of my existence or sense of self, even your supposed God fellow. CA you are foolish enough to assume that without morality, atheists only follow the law because there are punishments for crimes. That is hugely false. While it might be one reason, it is not the only one, and certainly not the primary motive. and on a side note, "people have a tendency to be opportunists" WOW I thought you were a believer in altruism, I guess I assumed wrong!

Any normal Christian wouldn't shoot their neighbor either, which was the point. Little is served by taking a single individual and holding them up a representative of a large group. Christians tend to take a pretty common sense approach to violence as well, and seeing that some people can be opportunists does nothing to dull my opinion or belief in altruism ;-)

some people tend toward opportunism, especially when it proves successful for them.

others tend toward altruism, though they may continue to do so even when the world spits it back in their face every once in a while, because they believe in some higher ideal.